There is a difference between an amateur student activist and a public official. As for her testifying in front of Congress, it is my understanding that she testified before a small Democratic Steering Committee and even then it was only because Issa has not allowed Fluke to testify before his larger committee. She is a student nobody from no where (I mean no disrespect) that no one knew, hardly a public figure until Rush got everyone heated. But of course she is milking it for all she can; Rush opened the door for her.

I understand your comment about hypocrisy. Then again, others who said what Rush said, or even less, on public radio or TV were suspended. Things inappropriate have been said on both sides of the aisle although Rush was/is the worst example I've heard so far given that she was a student and how long he kept it up. I do not agree they are trying to silence the opposition; just show a little civility. We can agree to disagree on BC (I still can't figure out why it's a big deal to the right), but we can do it with courtesy. Why not simply argue your points without calling someone repeatedly a slut on public radio?

CCP - Comedians have a license to swear; somehow it's ok. Go to a comedy club; you will see. Maher was doing a standup comedy act. He wasn't wearing his political commentator hat. That said, as I said,he blurs the distinction.

The Catholic Church is not encouraging it. They are just making it available. Just like the Adventists are not encouraging blood transfusions, but they make it available. Also, BC is cost effective. And there are LOTS of mandated benefits. We can argue if that's appropriate, but legislators (who we elected) in their wisdom have included them. And it is a medical issue.We should pay for it. Just like a heart attack is a medical issue for a fat person who likes cheeseburgers with bacon. But we still pay for the fat slob's heart attack.

The Iranians storming the embassy were only students, if that is funny. She is an activist of national exposure. If you deny that, read on and view the video. She was a leader of an anti-Catholic organization trying to take down Catholic principles in a Catholic university. She chose her public role. And she was discovered and pushed forward by others. That does not mean deserves bad words, it means she is a public figure, not acting as a student, but as a national policy advocate. She was being put forward to testify on a panel; of experts. When denied that she went public. Rush L. did not go to Georgetown interviewing students. She came to him via the airwaves as a leading advocate on her side's lead issue. Why do we always have to argue the obvious?----------------Ed Shultz called Laura Ingraham a slut, on air. Yeah, same word, no provocation. Rachel hasn't quoted Ed Shultz on the forum, but none other than... Sandra Fluke ... had no problem going on his show a week before the Rush Limbaugh incident. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-ed-show/46421856#46421856 And she wasn't there to say 'Ed, you misogynist'! She was there to bitch and whine about the plight of women who go to places like Georgetown of their own free choosing.

Was the 'Ed Show', originator of free on air slut calling okay with Fluke because liberals give better apologies? No. This is all a highly orchestrated political act and the Rush mistake was just too good to pass up.

Did Obama ever reach across the aisle and call the 'talk slut' Laura Ingraham and commissurate? Uh, no. Did it remind him of his daughters? What a bunch of bullsh*t.

Now Fluke is on the travel and making the rounds to all the shows and all the networks. She is booked by her PR agent, none other than ... Anita Dunn.

$9 a month for contraception is outrageous for a busy, taxpayer funded college student. Coast to coast travel for political speaking engagements? No problem.

Either the White House or the DNC planted the issue and put forward this 'student'. It started with the George Stephanopolous question off the wall in a debate where Gov. Romney had to say What?? This isn't an issue in any state! And Stephanopolous agreed on his own show ABC's 'This Week' the next day that he embarrassed himself badly there, set up by ... he didn't say whom.

This woman Fluke chose the nation's oldest Catholic University to set out on a firestorm against Catholic principles. Yes, Crafty, there are issues beyond religious freedom at stake, but religious freedom IS at stake.

I don't care for Bill O'Reilly much but he seems to have this one figured out: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-asks-who-is-running-sandra-fluke-it-all-goes-back-to-white-house/ "But now we see, alright, that Anita Dunn and her firm have embraced her. Now, she appeared on NBC 1, 2, 3, 4 times, CBS once, CNN once — no, five for NBC — and The View also. And each of these times, alright, there was a shadowy booking process. Because I spoke to some of these people. [...] She appears, she shows up. Somebody pays for all of that."

Fluke claims that only 2% of Catholic women follow the rules and principles of the faith anyway. Who really cares about such a small religious minority?? ?? ??

Rachel I believer is looking for the big picture, not for herself, on the issue but I would like to ask her in 20 or 30 years how having government enlarged and empowered to screw over and stomp out one faith and its principles has worked out for her religion. War against religion has not historically been good for ANY religion except the worship for a government controlled life.

You are 2 or 3 more bizarre twists or turns in the road from having a Rick Santorum administration choose the next Secretary of Health and Human Services and you want the federal government in the meantime to accumulate more power over these personal decisions? Good luck.

In the old days he would have to at least buy her 10 dinners a day for her to not be considered ... (the bad word meaning 'loose in morals or promiscuous').

I bet they are cheaper if bought in bulk, which it appears that Ms. Fluke needs to. I'm curious if the legally licensed "working girls" in Nevada's brothels average 10 condoms a day. I'm guessing not, which makes one wonder, especially given that unlike Ms. Fluke, the working women in NV tend to be attractive.

She doesn't have to contracept cost effectively if it isn't supposed to be with her money. She may have had no actual activity at all but a girl needs to be ready.

Why (again) did she choose to go public with what ought to be private?

Please provide receipts to the committee. It is an issue now. Roger Clemons was indicted, charged with lying to Congress and tried in federal court.

The operation that went on a mission to destroy Joe the Plumber is shocked and disappointed at a personal attack - from a radio show. Did you know Joe the Plumber was DIVORCED and his plumbing license was good in only one municipality? He'll never make a quarter million! He failed his apprenticeship. Obama knew his earning potential for the next 4 years was limited and proclaimed that fact nationally and publicly. It wasn't a radio show that went after him personally. It was the VP candidate first on a national show and then Obama himself, loud and often, without apology.

I suppose boys will be boys on this forum, but what happened to the search for the truth? This seems to have gotten to new lows. Despite everyone here's attempt to malign and degrade Ms. Fluke, Ms. Fluke herself never said the plan should pay for 10 condoms, 30 condoms or 3000 condoms in one month. As a matter of fact, she never even suggested that the plan pay for condoms. She suggested that the plan cover Birth Control Pills. Something similar to the cheeseburger with bacon eating fat slob's high blood pressure pills. Both are cost effective. Both are necessary to avoid an unwanted condition. Both have tertiary benefits. Both have the support of the general population.

"To some degree, the tax-funded contraceptive horse is already out of the barn. A study conducted in 2007 and 2008 by the Kaiser Family Foundation and George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services found that at least 39 states and the District of Columbia covered oral contraceptives under Medicaid, the health care program for the poor whose costs are split between state and federal governments. That was back during the George W. Bush administration."

It's no different than many other mandated benefits. And this one actually SAVES money. So why the bizarre, lewd crude, disgusting, personal attack on Ms. Flukes, a college law school student? If you disagree, if you don't think specific benefits should be mandated by government, fine, express your viewpoint in a logical methodical manner rather than personally maligning Ms. Flukes. This conversation might be fine for a football locker room, or a drunken bachelor party, but it has no semblance to public forum that is searching for the truth.

So let's move on. Do you really think this helps the Republicans obtain the women's vote?

Another pig….and a media association has hired the pig, Louis C.K., to be their headliner for the big media dinner? Really? I am not going. I refuse to go. Everyone in the media should join me in this boycott.

The headliner of this year’s Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner is “comedian” Louis C.K. Comedian? I don’t think so. Pig? yes.

He uses filthy language about women…..yes, the C word…and yes, even to describe a woman candidate for Vice President of the United States. It isn’t just Governor Palin he denigrates. He denigrates all women and looks to the crowd to laugh.

I refuse to show any support for this guy or for the Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner Committee who hired him. I think the organization that hired him is just as bad as he is. It is no secret that he denigrates women.

Here is a sample of what he said about Governor Sarah Palin and you tell me whether any member of the media should sit in the crowd while he speaks to them:

Louis C.K. says of Palin: “her f*** retard making c***” and “the baby that just came out of her f**** disgusting c***.”

The argument still is that we already do it and Bush did it so too bad to those with different ideas and those who care about principles or cost effectiveness with the public dollar even though we are trillions and trillions overspent. The constituency is large, therefore we should pander.

That we disagree strongly is reason why we should NOT have one size fits all healthcare. You really don't see that! You say move on but if you don't care then do that and leave this to people who do. We should concede arguments with people we disagree with to get their vote? For what?

The woman says she needs $3000 for contraception and she needs it paid for by someone else and the clause in the constitution that authorizes is called focus group polling. SHE BROUGHT IT UP, she went public, she reached into GM's wallet even though he had it tucked in a very private place. She offended a few people, like those who believe in limited government, constitutional government, efficient government or freedom of religion. And you don't care. So WHAT?

Repetitive, unresponsive, apathetic and insulting. Why is this hetero-centric law fair to gays who have no risk of accidental procreation subsidizing sexually active heterosexual women like they are an exploited minority? Have you answered ANY of the concerns expressed? No. If this were dinner conversation in person, would you insult everyone when you don't care about the topic, or politely make an excuse, thank your host and leave.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage. And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially, emotionally and medically, because of this lack of coverage. And so I'm here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them -- them, not me -- to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary. Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they've struggled financially as a result of this policy.

It's my understanding that generic BC pills are a whopping 9 bucks a month at Walmart. So that's a lot of Jimmie Hats.

"So why the bizarre, lewd crude, disgusting, personal attack on Ms. Flukes, a college law school student? If you disagree, if you don't think specific benefits should be mandated by government, fine, express your viewpoint in a logical methodical manner rather than personally maligning Ms. Flukes. This conversation might be fine for a football locker room, or a drunken bachelor party, but it has no semblance to public forum that is searching for the truth."

At the same time JDN claims we are bashing Fluke he does the same to us, ignores our valid points that have nothing to do with Fluke'sex life which she volunteered to in a round about way go pulbic with, turns it into a sexist issue, ignores the poltical activism involved, (which, JDN IS the truth), continues to ask, what is the big deal? (so if not a big deal than let the Catholic Church refuse to pay for it).

JDNs remarks remind me of MSNBC this morning on the Chris Hays show. the feminist activist democrat party advocate Katrina Vanden Heuvel complains how there are not enough women in government and the cast of guests of course talk of the parade of white men in the Republican party. No mention whatsoever of Sarah Palin being chosen and running as a VP for the POTUS. And they show a clip of Bachman volunteer to serving water to a group of white men at the start of a talk show meeting denigrating her to an example of white boys forcing women into some submissive role/posture etc.

JDN continies to ignore our points and then denigrate those of us on the right the exact same way while he professes the "truth".

On yahoo is a video of governor Chris Christie losing his temper with a Rutgers law student. I was not aware of the propose change to Rutger's name as a result of a merger with Rowan University. I don't know the specifics of this law student but this whole thing somehow smells of teachers unions vs the governor. The UMDNJ system has multiple corruption scandals. As a state prosecutor before he was governor he was active in that area.

****Kevin Riordan: Rutgers-Camden, Rowan may marry, but they should keep their namesJanuary 31, 2012|By Kevin Riordan, Inquirer ColumnistShare on emailShare on printShare on redditMore Sharing Services

Gov. Christie's proposal to "merge" Rutgers-Camden and Rowan University under the Rowan name looks less like a collegial partnership and more like a hostile takeover. Or perhaps a shotgun wedding.

Whatever you call it, the plan - part of an effort to reorganize, if not revolutionize, higher education statewide - feels like a foregone conclusion.

It arrived last week, floating on promises of more money, more jobs, more . . . more. And like so many decisions with enormous consequences for Camden, it appears to have been made with little input from people who live or work there.

Ads by GoogleNorth American PowerSwitch and Save Money on Your Bill Easy and Free to Enroll, No Fees NAPower-online.comCash 4 Silver New Jersey20 Locations - We Pay The Most Get Cash Instantly 609-651-4841 WeBuyAllGoldAndSilver.comIs it possible Camden and South Jersey would be better served by linking Rutgers and Rowan in a way that retains their identities? Could the schools gain academic and economic clout in a merger that more resembled a collaboration?

A "consortium," such as that proposed by the Rutgers-Camden faculty, could combine some programs at the universities, leveraging strengths but maintaining separate operations.

Others suggest creating an umbrella institution with a name such as University of Southern New Jersey. It would maintain key elements of Rutgers and Rowan, which would retain their names. The parent institution would have the scale and grant-attracting cachet of a large research university.

Some alternative seems preferable to Christie's bold proposal, which has not been well received at Rutgers-Camden.

Starkman, 25, of Cherry Hill, was one of nearly 200 law students who attended an afternoon question-and-answer session. No one who spoke, including Dean Rayman Solomon, applauded the merger.

Several antitakeover events are scheduled on campus this week, and more than 3,000 people have signed an online petition against the merger.

"I've never seen Rutgers-Camden so united," Janet Golden, a professor of history and a leader of the union that represents the teaching staff, told me Monday.

Christie's proposal is largely driven by his desire to dismantle the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and distribute its components to higher-education institutions, mostly in Newark and New Brunswick. New Jersey would end up with a large research university in each of its three major regions.****

People who live in anti-conservative misogynistic houses should not throw indignation

Posted by William A. Jacobson Saturday, March 10, 2012 at 8:18am

Rush Limbaugh used an analogy including the words slut and prostitute, and the liberal media and political sphere went wild.

It was just what Media Matters, Think Progress, and others needed to organize attacks on advertisers in an attempt to force Limbaugh off the air.

The self-righteous indignation that a woman had been insulted was laughable coming from a crowd which worships people who engage in sexualized attacks on conservative women, with Sarah Palin being a primary target. As Kirsten Powers pointed out, there is a long history of sexualized attacks on conservative women from prominent liberals on television, but no one ever boycotts them or attacks their advertisers.

Social-justice, racial-justice, gender-justice, in this case her cause is "Reproductive-Justice".

"Justice" does not need a hyphen or a qualifier, FYI, in the USA in 2012 - other than when used in the context of 'liberty and justice for all'.

A right or a liberty is not defined as requiring someone else to do something for you.

223 years of a right to bear arms and no one has demanded or received a free gun.

If I walk into a synagogue knowing the rules and demand that pork chops and Holy Communion be offered and they refuse, maybe someone watching the spectacle calls me a name, which of us is being boorish?

Unbelievable that people make a hit and run on this without acknowledging the underlying issues.

Border agents dead, troops in Afghanistan killed, a shooting in Cleveland, 6 million jobs gone perhaps forever, and the President calls and sympathizes with an intentionally divisive, anti-religious rights, anti-limited-government activist/provocateur.

March 10, 2012 4:00 A.M.The Fluke CharadeWhy should we have to fund a middle-aged schoolgirl’s sex life?By Mark Steyn

I’m writing this from Australia, so, if I’m not quite up to speed on recent events in the United States, bear with me — the telegraph updates are a bit slow here in the bush. As I understand it, Sandra Fluke is a young coed who attends Georgetown Law, and recently testified before Congress.

Oh, wait, no. Update: It wasn’t a congressional hearing; the Democrats just got it up to look like one, like summer stock, with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid doing the show right here in the barn, and providing a cardboard set for the world premiere of Miss Fluke Goes to Washington, with full supporting cast led by Chuck Schumer strolling in through the French windows in tennis whites and drawling, “Anyone for bull****?”

Oh, and the “young coed” turns out to be 30, which is what less evolved cultures refer to as early middle age. She’s a couple of years younger than Mozart was at the time he croaked, but, if the Dems are to be believed, the plucky little Grade 24 schoolgirl has already made an even greater contribution to humanity. She’s had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else (and this is where one is obliged to tiptoe cautiously, lest offense is given to gallant defenders of the good name of American maidenhood such as the many prestigious soon-to-be-former sponsors of this column who’ve booked Bill Maher for their corporate retreat with his amusing “Sarah Palin is a c***” routine . . . )

Where was I? Oh, yes. The brave middle-aged schoolgirl had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else pay for her sex life.

Well, as noted above, she’s attending Georgetown, a nominally Catholic seat of learning, so how expensive can that be? Alas, Georgetown is so nominally Catholic that the cost of her sex life runs to three grand — and, according to the star witness, 40 percent of female students “struggle financially” because of the heavy burden of maintaining a respectable level of premarital sex at a Jesuit institution.

As I said, I’m on the other side of the planet, so maybe I’m not getting this. But I’d say the core issue here is not religious liberty — which in these Godless times the careless swing voter now understands as a code phrase meaning that uptight Republicans who can’t get any action want to stop you getting any, too.

Nor is the core issue liberty in its more basic sense — although it would certainly surprise America’s founders that their republic of limited government is now the first nation in the developed world to compel private employers to fully fund the sex lives of their employees.

Nor is it even the distinctively American wrinkle the Republic of Paperwork has given to governmentalized health care, under which the “right to privacy” the Supreme Court claimed to have discovered in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade will now lead to thousands and thousands of self-insuring employers keeping computer records of the morning-after pills and herpes medication racked up by Miss Jones on reception.

Nor is the issue that America has 30-year-old schoolkids — or even 30-year-old schoolkids who expect someone else to pick up the tab for their extracurricular activities, rather than doing a paper route and a bit of yard work to save up for their first IUD, as we did back in my day. After all, the human right to government-mandated free contraception is as American as apple pie and far healthier for you. In my most recent book, I quote one of Sandra Fluke’s fellow geriatrics gamboling in the groves of academe and complaining to the Washington Post about the quality of free condoms therein:

“If people get what they don’t want, they are just going to trash them,” said T Squalls, 30, who attends the University of the District of Columbia. “So why not spend a few extra dollars and get what people want?”

All of us are born with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and a lifetime supply of premium ribbed silky-smooth ultrasensitive spermicidal lubricant condoms. No taxation without rubberization, as the Minutemen said. The shot heard round the world, and all that.

The authors say Bill Maher is more than just a comedian, and his comments on women are offensive.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS Authors reply to a CNN Opinion article by Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, Gloria Steinem They say the three should have condemned remarks by Maher as they did Limbaugh Maher contributed $1 million to a super PAC supporting President Obama Authors: Democrats should reject the money and Maher's offensive language

Editor's note: Teri Christoph and Suzanne Haik Terrell are co-chairwomen of ShePAC, a "movement to support, honor and elect conservative women." Christoph is the co-founder of Smart Girl Politics, a nonprofit organization founded in 2008 to encourage conservative women to get involved in the political process. Terrell, an attorney, is a former Louisiana state elections commissioner and was a 2002 Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate.

(CNN) -- As women, feminists, mothers to daughters and activists, we read the recent opinion piece on conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh by Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan with great anticipation. Once we had finished reading, we were left with feelings of amusement, amazement and, yes, agreement.

As women, we agree with them that hate speech and sexism against women is wrong in all forms, on all playing fields. Women who enter the public arena and stand up for their beliefs should be celebrated, whether we agree with them or not. Arguing with their beliefs is one matter; using derogatory terms or hate speech is another. Men who practice this regularly should apologize and change their ways and face the consequences.

As feminists, we read the piece with amazement. Recently, an entertainer, political activist and major donor has referred to women in the political arena with vile obscenities as well as words such as "bimbos," "boobs" and "MILFs."

Teri Christoph

Suzanne Haik Terrell

Bill Maher has advocated, in one case, that someone should "choke this b***h" and argued that voters would prefer to see a female candidate "splayed out on the hood of a car" rather than making decisions in the Oval Office. A recent video produced by ShePAC highlights some of Maher's "greatest hits" against women and special needs children. In 48 hours, more than 250,000 viewed it.

After reading and further researching, we were amazed that Fonda, Steinem and Morgan failed to condemn Maher for his hate speech against conservative and liberal women alike. In their piece, they write that their call to action "isn't political." Giving them the benefit of doubt, we thought, they were perhaps unaware of Maher's history of misogyny. But we were wrong.

Not only have these women not condemned Maher's vile and violent language, they've legitimized it. Both Fonda and Steinem have been guests on Maher's show, both failing to call him to task for his actions. Sadly, they are not alone.

Left slams Limbaugh, right slams Maher Neither have two former guests on Maher's Hollywood set: Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. They haven't had the courage or conviction to condemn his words against conservative women but have both found time to join Fonda and Steinem in the media the past week to do so against Limbaugh.

Maher on his super PAC donation But mostly, as conservatives, we read their opinion piece in amusement. To us, it's silly to think female voters are going to be swayed by the tired politics these women preach. They don't speak for us, and their politics of the past is being rejected.

Bill Maher: Santorum 'an insane person' Traditional "women's issues" from Fonda and Steinem's era are gone. Women flocked to conservative candidates in 2010 after they saw their children's share of the debt skyrocket. They joined with conservatives as unemployment rose and their hope for the future sank. Women have seen our freedom (including speech) under attack, and we have taken to the ballot box and the campaign trail to put a stop to it.

I am so tired of this "I wanna be an infantryman but I'll fall in the toilet if you leave the seat up" routine.

Politics ain't bean bag. Man up and get off the pedastal ladies-- and while you are at it you and your paramours should have the tolerance and respect for others who disbelieve in your ways to pay for your own birth control.

That doesn't even get to the key questions of the day: How do you like the idea of leaving your children and grandchildren to live in a third world country, and are you better off now than you were SEVEN trillion dollars ago, when Pelosi-Reid-Obama took over Washington with unemployment at 4.6%, partner in crime Rep. Keith Ellison of Mpls. swore on Thomas Jefferson Quran to destroy this country as we once knew it?

"Feminists are declaring a sex strike for Obamacare-subsidized birth control. The group Liberal Ladies Who Lunch is organizing 'Access Denied,' a week-long exercise in self-denial starting April 28. The strike is supposed to motivate men to stand up for government-funded birth control 'because when we lose our reproductive choices, so do they.' This is akin to protesting welfare cuts by getting a job. ... In this case, activists are abandoning the activity that causes their supposed need for the birth-control handout. ... Conservatives should applaud the strike. Abstention is well-regarded on the right, and not simply because it is 100 percent effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Taking a week off from promiscuity may give young women an opportunity to think about their life choices. Perhaps there is more to being a woman than ensuring the government supplies the means to engage in limitless hookups. Nursing chastity for a week puts necessary perspective on the type of subsidized sexuality that's at the center of the debate." --The Washington Times

"Feminists are declaring a sex strike for Obamacare-subsidized birth control. The group Liberal Ladies Who Lunch is organizing 'Access Denied,' a week-long exercise in self-denial starting April 28. The strike is supposed to motivate men to stand up for government-funded birth control 'because when we lose our reproductive choices, so do they.' This is akin to protesting welfare cuts by getting a job. ... In this case, activists are abandoning the activity that causes their supposed need for the birth-control handout. ... Conservatives should applaud the strike. Abstention is well-regarded on the right, and not simply because it is 100 percent effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Taking a week off from promiscuity may give young women an opportunity to think about their life choices. Perhaps there is more to being a woman than ensuring the government supplies the means to engage in limitless hookups. Nursing chastity for a week puts necessary perspective on the type of subsidized sexuality that's at the center of the debate." --The Washington Times

So, basically feminists are turning the "asprin between the knees" joke into reality. Nice!

I guess it's only for a week, as any longer and they risk having their leg hair tangle and fuse.

If Sowell is correct, the storyline implied in the Frontline piece is incomplete. Was this about a racial divide or about race AND ideology. IMHO, that is a HUGE difference! No time to explore that in a two hour documentary(?), just a clip leaving the impression he championed a black professor with an affirmative action cause and brought the two sides together. Radical whites and radical blacks are now all working together.

Sowell: "...[Bell] also said that by black, he does not mean skin color, he means those who are really black, not those who think white and look black. And so what he is really saying is he wants ideological conformity in the people that are hired to fill this position.

Remember earlier this month when Al Sharpton appeared on NBC’s Today Show to jump on the Rush-bashing bandwagon? Here’s what he had to say on the subject:

Sharpton mounted his high horse as he proclaimed: “They’re going to have to deal with it, one, because they have really made Rush Limbaugh such a great part of the conservative movement. … You can’t have him as a major spokesman in your movement and then he says something as offensive and misogynist as this and you act like he’s just an entertainer.”

Conservatives immediately pointed out Al Sharpton’s total lack of moral authority on the matter: He has an impressive history of racially offensive and other charged comments. Now, Breitbart.tv has helpfully assembled a montage of Al Sharpton’s worst hits, “The Al Sharpton Hate Files.” Ugly.

Big Hollywood’s John Nolte asks the pertinent question: “Using MSNBC’s own standards, should the man who once said [these things] be allowed to hold a primetime MSNBC slot?”

Nolte continues:

“White interloper.” I don’t even know what that means, but “cr-cker” is a slur against white Southerners — end of story.

We’re all grown-ups here, and I think we all know that “h-mo,” “n-gger,” and “cr-cker” trump “sl-t” any day of the week.

True, Sharpton said these things long before he was on MSNBC. But his history was well known, and the lack of outrage from the left when he was elevated to primetime highlights the hypocrisy of their anti-Rush censorship crusade. MSNBC President Phil Griffin knew that Sharpton said this sort of stuff regularly–that, in fact, such bigotry and radical rhetoric was an integral part of the Sharpton persona. He hired him nonetheless. One has to wonder if Brian Williams, Matt Lauer, and Tom Brokaw are proud.

The Foundation"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --Thomas JeffersonGovernment & PoliticsObamaCare Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

ObamaCare was built upon so many lies and deceptions it's hard to keep track, but this week revealed three in particular. What was it that Nancy Pelosi said about having to "pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"?Lie Number 1: "Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years." --Barack Obama in a September 2009 speech to a joint session of CongressThe Congressional Budget Office at the time did confirm Obama's numbers, but the CBO scores legislation only as written, without any assumptions or reality checks, and therefore accounted for just six years of spending because most provisions of the law don't kick in until 2014. There were other revenue and cost games, too, since it was paramount that the cost be less than the Iraq War so Democrats could sell it as saving money. We weren't fooled then and neither were millions of Americans, but Democrats rammed it through anyway.This week, the CBO released an updated report that includes three more years of ObamaCare inside that 10-year window. The estimated cost over a decade is now an eye-popping $1.76 trillion, or nearly twice what Democrats told us in 2009. Not only that, but it won't be until next year that we get a truer 10-year cost estimate, assuming the law isn't repealed or overturned by the Supreme Court. That estimate will surpass $2 trillion. Let's hope Justice Anthony Kennedy wakes up on the right side of the bed the day he makes his decision.Lie Number 2: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." --Barack Obama in August 2009, but repeated oftenObama and his fellow Democrats insisted that ObamaCare was not a government takeover of health care, and that, while all the uninsured would be cared for, none of the currently insured would lose coverage. However, The Hill reports, "Four million Americans can expect to lose their employer-provided healthcare by 2016, according to the revised figures, far more than the 1 million people estimated last year." You can check our math, but that's approximately four million more people than Obama promised in his 2009 speech. By 2022, the CBO says that number could reach 20 million. More employers dropping coverage in favor of paying the penalty means a revenue increase, too, improving ObamaCare's bottom line.As if to make good news out of broken promises, CBS headlined, "CBO lowers health reform cost estimate." This bit of deception referenced the provision meant to cover the uninsured when the real news was about the overall cost increase. It's true that the coverage cost was revised lower, but that's only because some two million fewer people will be insured than originally estimated, not because of any great savings.Lie Number 3: "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place." --Barack Obama in the aforementioned September 2009 addressThe Department of Health and Human Services finalized a rule this week establishing state health care exchanges, and those plans will collect from each premium payer a $1 surcharge to fund abortions. Obama's HHS will use accounting gimmicks to circumvent the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion. Former Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and other Democrats made a grand show over this issue in 2010, refusing to vote for the health care takeover until Obama included a ban on funding abortion. They got their wish, but Obama hasn't upheld his end of the bargain.It's becoming more and more important that this unconstitutional atrocity be either struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by our alleged representatives. The White House has already mapped out a desperate strategy to boost public support. Perhaps it's no wonder that the law's supporters are organizing a prayer vigil as the Court hears arguments March 26. To whom they will be offering prayer is another matter.What are some other ObamaCare lies? And will the Court overturn it?Obama Is Losing the Contraception BattleThe media narrative that women are leaving the Republican Party in droves over the free contraception debate doesn't hold up in the very polls that these same news outlets have executed. The Washington Post and The New York Times have frequently reported and editorialized (pretending they know the difference) about how the GOP is losing women because of its stance against the free contraception mandated under ObamaCare. But just as there is no GOP "war on women," there is also no mass exodus of women from the Republican Party.A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed Obama's approval rating actually dropped four points after the Sandra Fluke controversy erupted. Similarly, Obama lost ground to Mitt Romney in head-to-head matchups before and after the Fluke episode. The New York Times poll also discovered a post-Fluke drop in female support for Obama. Humorously, the bird-cage liner explained it away by reminding readers about margins of error and other statistical anomalies that can affect poll findings -- all valid points that the paper neglected to make during the Bush years.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award"When we start using religion as a bludgeon in politics, we start questioning other people's faith, we start using religion to divide, instead of bring the country together, then I think we've got a problem." --Barack Obama, bludgeoning defenders of religious liberty who oppose his new contraception mandateCampaign Trail: Spinning the WinningBy all appearances, Rick Santorum had an outstanding week. It began with Saturday's convincing win in Kansas and continued through Tuesday with narrow wins in Alabama and Mississippi -- states Newt Gingrich sorely needed to win to justify his continued presence in the race. Perhaps the bigger story is Mitt Romney's third place finish in the latter two states. Apparently his friendship with NASCAR team owners didn't translate into votes from NASCAR fans.On the other hand, the media narrative isn't all there is to the story. Thanks to superior organization, Romney's very close third place finishes translated into a fair number of delegates. Adding wins in Hawaii, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa, he actually padded his delegate lead this week. The Associated Press has his delegate count at 495 to Santorum's 252, with 1,144 needed to secure the nomination.After his wins, Santorum took some justifiable shots at the supposedly "inevitable" Romney, who had to spend a lot of money for his showing. Supporters of the former Pennsylvania senator also increased their calls for Gingrich to drop out, arguing that it's already a two-man race. Indeed, the former speaker staked much of his campaign on winning in Georgia and much of the South, and he has thus far failed to do so outside of his home state and neighboring South Carolina. However, the delegate math makes it highly unlikely that either Gingrich or Santorum will win the nomination outright, though they can certainly continue to make it difficult for Romney.Ron Paul, still with no wins and just 48 delegates under his belt, isn't going anywhere either. On the contrary, as blogger Ed Morrissey points out, "Ron Paul's campaign has worked hard to get its own people into the county and state conventions in order to swing the actual delegate allocations to Paul, and they have significant organizations in these states to push that strategy. Paul needs that not to win the nomination at a brokered convention -- no one thinks Paul can get the nod after having won no states -- but to push for his platform and to get a significant speaking slot, either for himself or his son, or both."This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award"These [Republican] guys don't have a sense of the average folks out there. They don't know what it means to be middle class." --Joe Biden to 87 wealthy Democrats who paid a minimum of $10,000 per couple to attend that particular fundraiser

Click Here

Shop our Newest Products!Check out our new arrivals! Great quality and great selections for all ages! New & Notable LegislationSenators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) introduced S. 2188, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012." The bill is the Senate version of H.R. 822, which passed the House last November by a vote of 272-154. It would permit any concealed-carry permit holder to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that also issues such permits. Illinois is the only state that has yet to acknowledge that the Second Amendment exists -- all 49 other states permit, to varying degrees, carrying a firearm.From the Left: Voter ID ChallengedThe Department of Justice unilaterally blocked a voter identification law in Texas, claiming it unjustly restricts minority voting rights as outlined in Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. This follows a similar action in December against South Carolina's voter ID law, which that state is currently fighting in federal court. The DOJ used statistical gymnastics to claim that the Lone Star State's law discriminates against Hispanics, claiming that Hispanics were 46.5 percent more likely than non-Hispanics to lack proper voter ID. This may seem to be a big difference, but the disparity is derived by comparing the 6.3 percent of Hispanic voters who don't have a driver's license to the 4.3 percent of non-Hispanics voters without them. Additionally, election ID cards in Texas may be obtained free of charge with the same amount of effort as it takes to obtain a library card or board an airplane, as Texas Governor Rick Perry pointed out.While the Civil Rights Act gives the DOJ the power to review voter laws in the South post-Jim Crow, it has been almost 20 years since the DOJ has challenged one. Georgia passed a voter ID law in 2005 that the DOJ cleared, and Hispanic voter turnout in the state has increased 140 percent. However, the landscape has changed since the 2010 election. Widespread Republican victories on state and local levels produced a series of voter ID laws meant to curb the increasing level of voter fraud taking place among immigrant populations and in urban areas.Meanwhile, a similar Wisconsin law was blocked because, in the words of Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess, it would "impermissibly eliminate the right of suffrage altogether for certain constitutionally qualified electors."Recent actions by the Supreme Court have upheld Indiana's voter ID law and also expressed a strong dislike for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because it essentially places the burden on states to prove their innocence rather than on the DOJ in proving their guilt. This suggests that if the South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin cases rise to that level of judicial review, the High Court might be sympathetic. That will take time, though, and it will certainly drag on past the 2012 elections, giving the DOJ all the time it needs.Of course, the United Nations Human Rights Council is also looking into U.S. voter ID laws, so the whole matter will no doubt be resolved satisfactorily once the likes of China, Cuba, Libya and Saudi Arabia weigh in.

IRS Goes After the Tea PartyDozens of Tea Party groups around the country that applied for nonprofit tax exempt status have received letters from the Internal Revenue Service demanding detailed information about the workings of their organizations. According to IRS rules, certain nonprofit organizations are allowed to have political expenses as long as active electioneering is not their primary activity. It is within the agency's right to question how the money collected by these organizations is spent, but the questionnaires received by the Tea Party groups are outrageously intrusive and probe into areas the IRS has no business investigating. Some of the questions include not just how many members a particular Tea Party group may have, but what the members' backgrounds are, who they associate with, and what is discussed at group meetings.These questionnaires traditionally precede full-blown audits by the IRS that can cripple an organization's ability to function -- probably just what the government has in mind. The agency claims it's merely doing its job in a nonpartisan fashion, but no leftist nonprofits have reported receiving the same high level of attention. Jay Sekulow, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, represents 20 Tea Party groups in a harassment case against the IRS. Sekulow reports that some of the applications for tax-exempt status have remained dormant at the agency for close to two years. The timing of the IRS follow-up, just months before a major election, is curious at best.EconomyGas Prices: Chu, Task Forces and TaxesEnergy Secretary Steven Chu has been spending his time lately walking back comments he made about gas prices in 2008. He said then, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe," which is roughly $10 per gallon today. In congressional testimony this week, however, Chu said, "I no longer share that view." It is an election year, after all, but even still, Chu wouldn't say he regretted his 2008 comments. "Let me not comment on that," he deflected. We think it remains clear that the administration wants high gas prices to serve their agenda to increase the use of alternative fuels. The trick is keeping that part of the plan hidden.To that end, the president says that while "we don't have a silver bullet" to fix gas prices, he does have a solution: "[W]e've set up a task force to look into speculation to make sure that folks aren't taking advantage of the situation on the global oil markets." Behold the brilliance.Don't tell Obama that we need more supply, either. "[D]o not tell me that we're not drilling. We're drilling all over this country," he jeered. "There are a few spots we're not drilling. We're not drilling in the national mall. We're not drilling at your house." However, most drilling is taking place on private land, and, according to the Institute for Energy Research, fossil fuel production on federal lands is at a nine-year low. Even Obama tacitly acknowledges the supply problem when he floats the idea of tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That's a cynical political move and an improper use of the reserve, but a tacit admission nonetheless.It's also possible that taxes have something to do with high prices. We know that doesn't fit with his re-election narrative, but as it turns out, oil companies pay more than their "fair share." In fact, the Tax Foundation estimates that between 1981 and 2008, oil and gas companies paid more in taxes than they earned in profits. Just remember, though, the oil companies are the greedy ones.What can be done to lower gas prices?Income Redistribution: Picking (More) Winners and LosersOn the surface, Barack Obama's idea of spending $1 billion for a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) sounds plausible, but the details tell the real story. To kick things off, the president will bypass Congress and immediately spend $45 million -- originally intended for the departments of Defense and Commerce and others -- on a "pilot institute" on innovation with the exact location yet to be determined. We suspect the location could depend on the need to pick up a swing state's electoral votes.Of course, the push will be for manufacturing that focuses on "green" technology, so industries that don't create politically correct widgets need not apply. After being burned by continuing scandals such as the Department of Energy's subsidies to Solyndra and at least 19 other politically correct companies, as well as the fallout from a $10 million award to Philips Corporation for making an "affordable" $50 LED light bulb to replace the 79-cent incandescent variety, it appears the government will use the NNMI as a handy scapegoat for more failures certain to come.Critics point out that it's another case of government interference in the market, but as Pam Villarreal, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, noted, "I'm a little bit confused that he hasn't renewed the research and development tax credit [in the FY2013 budget]. ... Why have a new initiative when you haven't extended the existing ones you have?" The answer is quite simple: The administration can't control who qualifies for the tax credit, but they get to pick the sites where NNMI will locate and who qualifies. Call it another innovation in command and control economics.

'Buffett Rule' Doesn't Apply to Buffett SubsidiaryBillionaire Warren Buffett gladly lent his name to Barack Obama's "soak the rich" tax proposal. Known as the "Buffett Rule," it says that millionaires ought to pay no less than 30 percent in taxes. When it comes to Buffett's own corporate empire, however, he sure likes to hang on to his money. Last November, NetJets Inc., owned by Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway holding company, contended it was due a rebate of $642.7 million in imposed taxes, interest and penalties. It argued that a federal rule assessing a ticket tax to NetJets clients didn't apply. Last week the IRS struck back, countersuing the company for $366 million.While it's quite possible NetJets isn't, as the IRS sees things, guilty until proven innocent, this seems like hypocrisy on Buffet's part. He advocates that people of his station pay their "fair share," but the business owner in him is fighting tooth and nail -- and paying lobbyists quite handsomely -- to avoid what he sees as "unnecessary" taxes. Then again, he's getting a taste of what the rest of us have to put up with on a smaller scale when we run afoul of the tax man.

Click Here

Teach your children (and yourself) about the Presidential Election process with this board game!What a great way to help younger Patriots understand the process our nation follows to elect a president! First you'll campaign for delegate votes, then go for electoral votes. Along the way, you'll answer questions on the presidency, the Constitution, U.S. history, and geography. Four play levels means kids and adults can "run for office" together. Two to four players, ages 10 and up. Made in the U.S.A. SecurityWarfront With Jihadistan: U.S. Soldier Kills 16 AfghansThe situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating rapidly. Just weeks after U.S. troops accidentally burned terrorist-defaced Korans, setting off the usual outrage, rioting and killing among adherents of the Religion of Peace™, a U.S. soldier threw napalm on the fire allegedly by methodically murdering 16 Afghan civilians last Sunday. Nine of the dead were children and three were women. Eleven of the victims were from the same family. The shooter, reportedly a staff sergeant with two children of his own at home, was assigned to a Special Operations Forces detachment that, ironically and sadly, was training local self-defense forces to protect Afghan villagers from the Taliban. The soldier, whose identity hasn't been disclosed, surrendered and is now in U.S. custody. Investigators say that alcohol played a role in the shootings and that the soldier had seen a close friend grievously wounded by an IED the day before.Naturally, the Taliban vowed revenge for the murders, and unfortunately the incident lent credence to their claim that foreign troops are callous killers of Muslims. The Taliban failed to note their own frequent mass murders of Muslims. Barack Obama, in the first of his many -- and, in this case, actually appropriate -- apologies, called Afghan President Hamid Karzai to express his "shock and sadness" and to make clear that the U.S. will "hold fully accountable anyone responsible." He added, "We're heartbroken over the loss of innocent life."Needless to say, this event hasn't helped relations between the U.S. and Afghanistan, nor will it help to stop the erosion of support at home for the Afghan war. Karzai is calling for U.S. troops to pull back to U.S. bases, and the Taliban is suspending negotiations (not that those were going anywhere). Here at home, even Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich joined others in Washington who claim it's time for the U.S. to quit, saying that the U.S. mission is "not doable" and it's time "to back off that region." However, the U.S. ambassador warned against leaving Afghanistan earlier than planned, and both Obama and visiting British Prime Minister David Cameron ruled out any dramatic changes to the late 2014 withdrawal date.The diminished support here at home and the erosion of trust, such as it is, between U.S. and Afghan forces will only increase the risks our troops face. This matter could incite further incidents of Afghan soldiers turning on and killing U.S. troops, as well as emboldening Taliban fighters. The now-muddled Afghan mission and the approaching withdrawal date will also affect troop morale, which can only further raise the risks. The U.S. outlook for Afghanistan is very grim, indeed.Department of Military Correctness: Enterprise's Final DeploymentThe aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65) departed on its 22nd and final deployment this week. When the world's first nuclear aircraft carrier returns later this year, it will be deactivated and eventually decommissioned, marking the end of more than 50 years in service. We certainly hope CVN-65 doesn't share the same fate as the previous Enterprise -- the World War II carrier CV-6 was dismantled for scrap. There are possible plans to preserve the island of the carrier, but nothing is finalized.With the decommissioning, the Navy will no longer have a ship named "Enterprise," unless that name is bestowed upon CVN-80. The unfortunate tradition now is to name carriers after undeserving politicians -- the USS Ronald Reagan being an exception. Jimmy Carter and John Murtha happen to serve as the most offensive examples. Indeed, ship names have become little more than political cookies. We mean no disrespect, but naming a ship the USS Gabrielle Giffords after the former Arizona Democrat representative is not terribly appropriate. She has bravely persevered in her recovery after being shot in the head last year, but how about a ship named after a Founding Father first?What are appropriate names for naval ships?

Culture'Non Compos Mentis': The Obama FlagThe Democrat headquarters in Lake County, Florida, flew an American flag that was a disrespectful insult to our nation and to the veterans who have given life and limb defending it. The flag bore a picture of Obama in the blue field instead of the 50 stars. The counterfeit flag flew just below Old Glory until local veterans complained. A small group of veterans took pictures and gave a copy of the federal flag code to Nancy Hurlbert, chairman of the Lake County Democratic Party.She says the flag flew without complaint since she received it as a gift two months ago, and she not only didn't understand the complaint, but also implied that is was based on racism. "It leads me to believe that it's not about the flag," she said. "Certain elements cannot accept Barack Obama as president." Though Hurlbert took the flag down, she wouldn't promise to not fly it again. First, she said, "We want to find out what our legal rights are." Pardon us, but we believe the veterans already supplied that information to her.To add insult to injury, the flag, which is available online for $12.95, is made in China. We wonder if leftists would be upset at its burning, or if that would be considered free speech.Share some words of wisdom with Florida Democrats.Village Academic Curriculum: Heating Up the ClassroomOnce upon a time, science class meant studying things such as biology, gravity and the speed of light. Now, if some groups have their way, science classes across the country will become labs for developing global warming alarmists. Next month, several national organizations -- including the National Research Council, part of the congressionally chartered National Academies -- will unveil science education standards that teach as fact manmade global warming. As The Wall Street Journal reports, the groups "are working from a document they drew up last year that says climate change is caused in part by manmade events, such as the burning of fossil fuels" and that "rising temperatures could have 'large consequences' for the planet." In other words, no debating theory, no questioning the source, no examining all of the evidence, just calling a political position "settled science."That's because the "proof" of man-induced global warming is hardly settled science. In fact, the global warming camp can't even meet its own standards for what constitutes reliable evidence that the earth is heating up -- namely that "n order to separate human-caused global warming from the 'noise' of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long." Not only have temperatures not "warmed" over the last 17 years but they've actually been dropping since 2005. Naturally, climate alarmists have no answer for this; hence, their need to propagate their indoctrination of our school-age children. Get ready -- the debate over global warming guidelines in the classroom is about to get hot, even if the climate isn't.Administration to Defend Mt. SoledadIn a rare move to defend religious liberty, the Obama administration decided to defend the Mt. Soledad War Memorial, which includes a 29-foot cross. The Justice Department filed briefs Wednesday asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court's 2011 ruling that the memorial is an unconstitutional "establishment" of religion. Frankly, we're rather shocked to find ourselves in total agreement with something written by the Obama DOJ: "The decision below, if permitted to stand, calls for the government to tear down a memorial cross that has stood for 58 years as a tribute to fallen service members. Nothing in the Establishment Clause compels that result, because the Establishment Clause does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm." Thirty-four members of Congress filed a separate legal brief in support of the memorial. We have followed this case for several years, and we hope the Supreme Court takes it up and acknowledges the First Amendment.Faith and Family: 'Wrongful Birth'An Oregon couple won a wrongful birth lawsuit last Friday and was awarded nearly $3 million. What is "wrongful birth," you may ask? The couple convinced a jury that their daughter should not have been born because she has Down syndrome, which the woman's doctor assured her was not the case while the girl was in utero. The couple contends that they would have aborted their daughter and now face the financial burden of raising her. It is appalling that a jury voted 12-0 and awarded this couple $3 million for the admission that they would have killed their child if they had only known. Granted, raising special needs children can be expensive, but we mourn the fact that the culture of death is so pervasive -- at least in Oregon -- that a human being can be legally declared to have been wrongfully born.

Like her mother, Bristol Palin has been on the receiving end of incredibly cruel criticisms. The negativity has run the gamut from passing remarks about a lack of intelligence to hateful indictments of the mistakes she’s made (and earnestly attempted to rectify). But perhaps no one has been more unkind to the Palins than Barack Obama’s million-dollar man, Bill Maher. Maher’s mean-spirited, unrepeatable remarks about Sarah Palin have been well-documented, but he also once said Bristol Palin was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.” Who says that sort of thing about an unwed teenage mother? Who says that sort of thing about anyone?

Bristol, though, truly not “afraid of life,” has now echoed her mother’s call to the president to reject the money Bill Maher donated to Obama’s Super PAC. Obama might not technically have control over when and where and how “his” Super PAC spends its money, but he could publicly disavow Maher — or reach out to the conservative women who’ve been insulted by him.

In a post on her new blog and in clear, sincere language, Bristol appeals to the president’s highest, noblest instincts — most especially his instinct to protect his daughters, the instinct he cited as the reason he felt compelled to call Sandra Fluke to apologize for Rush’s insults. She writes:

If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager. That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.

Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you. Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women. You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.

But…

What if you did something radical and wildly unpopular with your base and took a stand against the denigration of all women… even if they’re just single moms? Even if they’re Republicans?

Misogyny and male chauvinism run deep in the roots of the modern Left.

byRand Simberg

Bio

March 18, 2012 - 11:30 am

An evergreen guide to what the Left is doing or plans to do is to listen to what they accuse their political opponents of. Along those lines, incandescent in its projection, cynicism, and hypocrisy is the latest mantra emanating from the Democrats of the “Republican War On Women,” based on nothing more than some crude comments (since apologized for) by a talk-show host aimed at a Democrat feminist activist who thinks that the world owes her free (and expensive) contraception and, moreover, that it should be done in violation of the religious conscience of Catholics. Of course, they don’t want their demagoguery to be distracted by the annoying reality that their own misogyny and assault on women is much more virulent, and has been going on for much longer.

It should be shocking, by the conventional narrative, that the White House of a “liberal” president would be a hostile work environment for women, but it is not at all a surprise to anyone familiar with the history of the Democrats and the Left, going back at least to the 1960s, when a prominent Democrat politician got a pass from the media for abandoning a young woman (possibly pregnant by him) to drown in his car. The same man went on to later fame as the top slice of bread in a “waitress sandwich,” and yet was so lionized by the Left that not that long ago, at the time of his death, a woman(!) wrote that Mary Jo Kopechne might have been happy to undergo the terror as her lungs filled with the brackish water of Martha’s Vineyard had she only known what a great legislator he would turn out to be.

To see similar hypocritical Leftist misogyny, we need only go back to the last time a Democrat was in the White House. Whenever a woman came forward with allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct by Bill Clinton, the response of the Clinton defenders, both in and out of the media, was to attack her credibility, character, and virtue. Advisor James Carville famously said of Paula Jones (the young Arkansas state employee whom Clinton as governor had his state police guard procure to his hotel room for the purpose of orally pleasuring him), “Drag $100 bills through trailer parks, there’s no telling what you’ll find.” Evan Thomas of Newsweek dutifully complemented the slander by declaring her on national television “just some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks,” though he later was compelled to apologize in print. (One wonders how residents of trailer parks felt about that, but I guess empathy for them is for the little people.) When Kathleen Willey accused the president of groping her in the White House, and was physically threatened for her trouble, feminist icon and (former) scourge of sexual harassers Gloria Steinem said that it was no problem — he was entitled to a freebie, after which Cathy Young of Reason magazine reported on “the death of sexual harassment.”

It got worse. As the Paula Jones lawsuit progressed, and the president committed acts of obstruction of justice (federal felonies) by perjury and subornation of perjury through threats and bribes, the White House was prepared to go after Monica Lewinsky, the woman about whom he engaged in such obstruction. She was bribed with jobs, and urged to in turn suborn perjury from her confidante Linda Tripp, by implying threats against her family. If the incriminating blue dress hadn’t turned up, their plan was to continue to cover up and lie, and accuse Lewinsky of being a crazy stalker. The White House orchestrated the leak of the personnel files of Pentagon employee Linda Tripp, the only person in the entire fiasco who told the truth, in an attempt (sadly quite successful) to discredit her. This included a mistaken felony arrest record that had been sealed since she was a teenager. She was vilified and maligned in the media, with late-night comedians mocking her physical appearance. It’s unlikely that many of these people were either conservatives or Republicans.

Again, no one familiar with the history of the Left should be surprised by any of this (other than perhaps the blatant hypocrisy, aided and abetted by the ever-compliant press). Misogyny and male chauvinism run deep in the roots of the modern Left. Many think that the gender feminist movement of the seventies, started by Gloria Steinem and others, was a reaction against the conventional culture of the fifties and early sixties, with its casual assertions of male superiority and paternalism (on literally dramatic display in the AMC television series Mad Men, which also shows how the attitudes evolved through the decade). But it was at least as much, if not more, a reaction against the male chauvinist pigs of the so-called New Left on campus in the mid-to-late sixties, in which the men would write up the manifestos and plan the demonstrations, expecting nothing more of the women than to satisfy their appetites by cooking for and copulating with them. Basically, it was barefoot (or naked) in the kitchen, hopefully without the pregnancy, but for which abortions were required in the event of accidents.

The attitudes of Leftist sexist men were well documented by the women’s movement:

Women’s developing networks ran into conflict with the alternative media almost from the outset. In 1969, Spazm, the Laura Murra paper mentioned earlier, had focused attention on sexism practiced by the alternative press. Reporting the Radical Media Conference in Ann Arbor in July of 1969, Spazm published the Conference’s resolution on “Women and the Underground Press.” It expressed the rejection of the sexism in underground papers by the women who worked on them and by other women who were irritated by their overt disrespect for women. Although the best known of these underground papers was The Village Voice, begun in New York in 1955, the number of others had increased dramatically by 1970 to over 450 such papers. While most of them purported to believe in female liberation, they nonetheless included sexist advertisements, photographs, cartoons, and articles. San Francisco’s Open City printed photographs of a woman carrying a sign stating “Every Woman Secretly Wants to be Raped.”

It resulted in a takeover of some of the publications by the women:

The February 7, 1970 issue of Rat included the Rat‘s most classic piece, Robin Morgan’s “Goodbye to All That.” Goodbye, she said, to the pornographic cover of Rat, to the personal ads, the little jokes. “No more, brothers. No more well-meaning ignorance, no more co-option, no more assuming that this thing we are fighting for is the same: one revolution under man, with liberty and justice for all.”

The politics of radicalizing academia was similarly sexist:

The issue of the role of women in the [American Studies] Association was more controversial than that of electing radicals and students to the Council. In 1969 Betty Chmaj was the only woman on a council of twenty-seven. This reflected not only the attitude of the national office in Philadelphia and the status of women in universities, but also the practice of the regional chapters in every part of the country, for in 1969 most of the council members were elected by the chapters. Chmaj almost singlehandedly forced ASA to face the “woman question.” It was not easy. Many of the men who called themselves radical did not think the issue of discrimination against women in the Association was a concern of high priority, and the ASA, like all professional associations of this period, had its share of male chauvinists and womanizers. One could say of Radical American Studies what Rayna Rapp said of her male colleagues at the University of Michigan: “They had all this empathy for the Vietnamese, and for black Americans, but they didn’t have much empathy for the women in their lives; not the women they slept with, not the women they shared office space with, not the women they fought at demonstrations with.”

[Emphasis mine]

Of course, the misogynist tradition of Leftist protest remains alive and well, as we’ve seen over the past few months. There has been no recorded incident of rape at any Tea Party rally, but no Occupy protest seems complete without at least one.

So when you see a White House staffed with people nurtured in such a radical environment, as Barack Obama himself was, it shouldn’t be surprising at all to see the old Leftist misogyny and sexism (and lies and projection) continue. It’s in the movement’s DNA. So when they talk about a war on women, it should be pretty tough for anyone knowledgeable to take them seriously. Unfortunately, that category probably doesn’t yet include the mainstream media.

What is it about Ron Paul that so many people find intellectually appealing? Perhaps it is his frankness and candor, a rare trait in politicians. But I think it goes far beyond that. Paul — and libertarian philosophy in general — tackles government policy the same way a researcher tackles an experiment.